Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[MG 2.0]

I'd say we are on solid ground questioning the reliability of a serial liar, adulterer, professional treasure seeker, and would-be US President who proclaimed himself even greater than Jesus because his people stood by him...until some of them participated in his lynching because see above re: serial lying, adultery, financial schemes and ego.

You and I both know there’s much more to these issues than what you’re portraying. Books have been written, articles have been published that take various positions. Some of those being along the line that you portray and others that take a more positive slant.

And in a forum such as this which is reduced mainly to soundbites you, or I for that matter, can say what ever we want to say.

I mean, look at Doc, for example.

Truth is, there are many differing view points that range from Joseph was a scoundrel to Joseph was a saint. The church is a cult, the church is God’s Kingdom. Etc.

And most recently, on this thread, Joseph saw God and Christ, Joseph saw the Devil and his minions.

All over the map.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t.

MG,

He lied to his father-in-law and eloped with Emma. He lied to Emma and cheated on her repeatedly, inventing a religious requirement to cover it up.

The Book of Mormon is clearly detached from American pre-Columbian history. It's clearly based on racist 19th century beliefs about the Native Americans.

The Church codified the worst of the racial prejudices in American history to the point it held onto them over a decade past the time the Supreme Court ruled against state laws criminalizing interracial marriage. It stands today against equal rights, it gives cover to anti-science positions.

You're right. We choose to trust what Joseph, and by extension the LDS church, said. Or we don't.

The evidence, however, is anything but peripheral to that choice. One chooses to acknowledge it and allow it to inform ones choice...or one doesn't.

And again, one chooses the sources of what is consumed as they read books and articles that refer to these issues and others that could be mentioned. There are various ways that so called issues can be interpreted by those that write the historical narratives.

Some are positive, some are negative, and some are more neutral in their positions.

And it’s all in the eye of the beholder. What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

The Joseph Smith Papers project vs. something written by a third party who simply concludes, “Joseph was a scoundrel”, is preferable as source information…in my estimation.

On a board like this composed mainly of critics we are going to see ‘zingers’ such as those in your list, rather than actual history written in first or second person within a wider context.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

Many of the posters here have spent a LOT of time following the footnotes in LDS publications to find that the LDS apologists misrepresent the sources...

[Marcus]

...On a board like this composed mainly of critics we are going to see ‘zingers’ such as those in your list, rather than actual history written in first or second person within a wider context...

No, that is blatantly incorrect. Over the years, a great deal of "actual history written in the first or second person" has been discussed here, and your bias has not been supported by any of it. If you feel otherwise, please provide factual evidence that any of the 'zingers' in that list are not true, or are insupportable by accepted historical narratives.

[honorentheos]

I'd say we are on solid ground questioning the reliability of a serial liar, adulterer, professional treasure seeker, and would-be US President who proclaimed himself even greater than Jesus because his people stood by him...until some of them participated in his lynching because see above re: serial lying, adultery, financial schemes and ego.

You and I both know there’s much more to these issues than what you’re portraying.

Nah, anything I don't want to acknowledge as important is just peripheral.

[I Have Questions]

What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

You are arguing against accepting the Book of Mormon (abridged by an author who would have prejudice one way or the other) and the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses (which were neither written, nor signed by themselves but which were written by an author with clear prejudice one way or the other).

[honorentheos]

What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

You are arguing against accepting the Book of Mormon (abridged by an author who would have prejudice one way or the other) and the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses (which were neither written, nor signed by themselves but which were written by an author with clear prejudice one way or the other).

MG's comment isn't serious. What is more primary than, say, the actual first vision accounts and the scriptures regarding the godhead that changed? He probably forgot that the 1832 account was so primary Joseph Fielding Smith had it removed from Smith's diary and hidden in a vault.

Or is that fact peripheral because we only know about it because people who don't share MGs bias forced the church to take it out of the vault and go public with it? I don't know. Best as I can tell, MG filters information based on if it supports a faithful narrative or contradicts it. The words he uses to try and explain how the evidence should be dealt are pulled out of his, um, periphery.

MG also appears to believe folks only get their opinions from other people's opinions rather than from examining the evidence themselves. It explains the odd belief primary sources in his usage refer to what Smith said about Smith rather than the material evidence. That is revealing.

[honorentheos]

You and I both know there’s much more to these issues than what you’re portraying. Books have been written, articles have been published that take various positions. Some of those being along the line that you portray and others that take a more positive slant.

Another point. Notice the reference to the pro-LDS church position as positive?

Value judgements reveal biases. Describing a position as "good" or "bad", "positive" or "negative" require bringing ones own values into the assessment.

Critical thinking accepts that biases and value judgements are part of the reporting on a topic and then provides tools for using that reality to better understand the facts and draw informed conclusions. That is why the argument previously presented in the thread regarding core doctrines demanding priority over evidence that may undermine the claims behind those doctrines is so misguided. Effectively, MG is providing us with multiple arguments all saying "Don't think critically about the claims of the church. Accept them and then the problematic issues won't seem as bad."

[MG 2.0]

Effectively, MG is providing us with multiple arguments all saying "Don't think critically about the claims of the church. Accept them and then the problematic issues won't seem as bad."

My point is that we can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. I’m not talking about displacement or ignoring…or even referring…to one source exclusively over another. What I’m saying, and what has worked for me, is trying to keep an objective balance between sources and NOT excluding one over the other.

For years I couldn’t get my hands on enough material to support the position that the LDS Church was not what it claimed to be. I ate it up. Long story made short, as I came to a place where I tried to create a balance and equilibrium between source material and also the time I spent on one ‘school’ of thought vs. another I started to find that some of the rough edges started to wear off. I was able to see things from multiple perspectives.

As this gradually came to be my modus operandi I found myself in a place where I felt it was reasonable to keep the faith. I haven’t regretted taking that approach.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'd say we are on solid ground questioning the reliability of a serial liar, adulterer, professional treasure seeker, and would-be US President who proclaimed himself even greater than Jesus because his people stood by him...until some of them participated in his lynching because see above re: serial lying, adultery, financial schemes and ego.

You and I both know there’s much more to these issues than what you’re portraying. Books have been written, articles have been published that take various positions. Some of those being along the line that you portray and others that take a more positive slant.

And in a forum such as this which is reduced mainly to soundbites you, or I for that matter, can say what ever we want to say.

I mean, look at Doc, for example.

Truth is, there are many differing view points that range from Joseph was a scoundrel to Joseph was a saint. The church is a cult, the church is God’s Kingdom. Etc.

And most recently, on this thread, Joseph saw God and Christ, Joseph saw the Devil and his minions.

All over the map.

Regards,
MG

And yet it is only your interpretation of JSH that makes you say that Joseph saw God and Christ, because Joseph, although the choice of what to say was his completely, simply did not say so - as you know, he spoke on more than one occasion about having seen two (sometimes one) personages, but, presumably for his own good reasons, did not identify them.

You want to put words in his mouth that he obviously made a point, more than once, of not saying. I demonstrated that there were other possibilities, and suggested one that is as well supported by the content of canonized scripture as yours. You didn't seem to like my choice, but you have not been able to refute it from the scriptures, or to justify your preference over my suggestion.

"there’s much more to these issues than what you’re portraying" - well of course there is - there always is - at least in real life. Likewise there is more than you are portraying. But do we have to reproduce all of the articles & books every time we want to discuss something? If you agree that that's not reasonable, then I'm at a loos to see what point you're trying to make.

Once again your "argument" comes down to your choosing to believe something that fits your upbringing and biases, regardless of lack of supporting evidence, and/or in spite of evidence to support another view.